Macedon vs. Macedon: Longtime discord continues between town and village

Tuesday

May 20, 2014 at 10:00 AMMay 20, 2014 at 10:15 AM

By Julie Sherwood and Tammy Whitacretwhitacre@messengerpostmedia.com

MACEDON — No one knows when it started. But most anyone who knows or lives in Macedon agrees hostility between town and village governments goes back decades.This community of some 10,000 people and a village of about 1,500 people tucked inside a growing town along the Erie Canal in Wayne County has had its share of political battles for years.Topics of debate range from fire and ambulance services to efforts to dissolve the village, as well as a legal standoff that is ultimately a debate over ownership of the sewage treatment plant.The names have changed over the years, but the fray remains, and may, in fact, have reached its apex in 2013, when the town opted out of its fire-protection agreement with the village and approved the creation of a new fire district and department that covers much of the area the village department covered.The supervisor who led the change has been criticized in letters to local newspapers for the move, but denies the town is fueling the fire."I've always wondered what the problem between the town and the village was," said Town Supervisor Bill Hammond at a recent Town Board meeting, responding to questions about longstanding tensions. "We've reached out to them. I want the town and the village to work together, but it was always, ‘We'll do our own thing and you do your own.'"The dysfunction between the two governments didn't start with the current administrations. Past supervisors, including Art Ainsworth, who served in the 1990s, sparred over ambulance services and other issues with the village, then led by former mayor Sharon Benjamin.Nothing changed in subsequent town and village administrations.Trustee David Sliney, a 14-year veteran of the Village Board, couldn't pinpoint a specific issue that put the boards at odds until the village police department was taken over by the town in 2004-05. Up to that point, the town had contracted with the village to provide police services, but was unhappy with paying about 75 percent of department costs but having no say in how it was run."Until recently, barbs were thrown back and forth, but nothing really happened," Sliney said. "There's a lot of blame to pass around."The numbers debateTown Board member Paul Kenyon said the town has, over the years, provided support to village-owned agencies, such as fire and police, "with no strings," he said.There came a point where the town needed to press for an accounting, said Kenyon.In referring to why the town took over the police force, Kenyon said, "there have been zero deficits and no surpluses for years and years. That's impossible. We'd given them a chunk of dough to run an organization. You'd think if there'd been a surplus in the account, there would be a credit or a refund to us, for our taxpayers."Added Kenyon, a member of the Town Board since the 1990s: "When you're spending town residents' money, we'd like an accounting. We've been trying to get that for years and years."Specifically, Kenyon said, for years the operation of the police department included a $500,000 contribution from the town. When the town took over the police department, the town assumed the full cost would add an additional $125,000 to the budget, formerly the village's share.That didn't happen, he said."You'd assume that when we took over, our costs would increase 25 percent. It didn't," said Kenyon.Before this question of accounting came to a head with the police issue, the village, then led by longtime mayor Jim Hoteling, would send the town a bill and the town would pay it, he said."We began to question that in 2004-05 with the police department," Kenyon said. "When we got the bill, we'd ask, where's that 75 percent?""Any time we asked for an accounting, we were met with hostility," said Kenyon. "We're asking ourselves, ‘Shouldn't I have some relationship with the organization and structure when we're paying 75 percent?' It didn't seem equitable and reasonable."Overlapping services cause disputeThe debate over costs and control is central to many of the issues between the two municipalities, and it has led to duplication of services that both sides say cost taxpayers money.Village Mayor Marie Cramer said the town contract for village-owned ambulance services followed a similar path as the fire department, starting out as a complaint from the town about how much it was paying into the service. The village's largely volunteer squad had only one paid member, which was added to maintain service throughout the growing town, keeping costs at a minimum, the mayor said.Cramer said the town declined to renew its contract and then created its own paid ambulance service — a measure she claims cost taxpayers a great deal because the service was already being provided by the village department."They paralyzed the services available town-wide," the mayor said. And as for the town's claim that it wishes to partner with the village, "Their actions are different than their words," she said.The village ambulance remains intact with a state Department of Health certificate of need that allows it to serve town and village, Cramer said, but the village added paid members for daytime hours, with volunteers covering the remaining times. The town is in litigation with the health department to add the village to its certificate, despite the fact that it already has permission to enter the village to provide ambulance service if needed, Cramer claims.A far-more-contentious issue was fire-protection services.Last April, the town opted to enter into a five-year agreement with the Macedon Center Fire Department to cover a large portion of the town south of the Erie Canal — territory the village department had been protecting for over 100 years. The town later approved the formation of a new fire department, South Macedon, and signed a five-year agreement that began Jan. 1. The village department was left to cover only village territory, although it backs up other fire departments when needed.The town's contract with the village for fire services made up 70 percent of the department's $104,000 budget.In the debate over fire protection, community members called behavior between the two boards "disgusting," "childish" and "embarrassing." On more than one occasion, both have been accused of petty bickering by residents attending packed meetings, mingled with pleas to stop the fighting and work together."The saddest moment I had as a village trustee is the way (the Town Board) treated the village fire department," Sliney said. "It was malicious."As tired as the community may be with the dissension, some Village Board members seem fed up with being criticized for it.Sliney said he has had enough of hearing people in the community complain about the dissonance between the boards, while at the same time, no one regularly attends board meetings to see what's going on."In the grocery store, on the street, people complain about the fighting, but no one comes to the meetings," he said. "I'm tired of it."The mayor sees it differently."Today, people are so busy," said Cramer. "They rely on us to take care of things so they don't have to attend meetings. That's what we were elected to do."Cramer said recently that the Village Board has long been criticized for using taxpayer money for community projects, like the Butterfly Trail, a path created in Canal Park near Lock 30, which was done with considerable private help. Cramer said she challenges the town to show that the village has misappropriated money in any way."We have a yearly audit," Cramer said. "If state agencies don't have an issue with our books, that tells me we are doing everything legally and appropriately."Cramer said the village will continue providing ambulance and fire protection, despite the obvious duplication of services since the creation of the ambulance and South Macedon Fire Department."You have a municipality that has provided fire service for over 113 years and ambulance service since 1960," she said. "Why shut down services that were already serving the people efficiently, cost effectively and financially responsibly?"The question, she said, is why did the town create the services when the village was already providing them?A fractured communityResidents have varied views on the long-running spat."The more we break from the village, the better," said Frank Enos, a Marine Corps veteran who attended the April 24 Town Board meeting.He believes the Town Board should do all it can to take charge in the best interest of the community."You will see they have everything under control," he said.Rob Kelsey, who moved to Macedon from Pittsford in 2010, sees it differently."The first thing I heard about was dissolving the village," said Kelsey, an employee of the village's Department of Public Works. "It seemed to me as a new resident that the town wants their name on everything."An observer from Macedon's neighbor to the east, Palmyra, sees an unnecessary divide."A small community is a small community," said Alex Rea, who has close ties to Macedon, where he spends a lot of time and frequents local businesses."When the block of Palmyra burned, we needed everybody, and there was," said Rea, recalling the May 3, 2013 fire that destroyed several 19th-century buildings and heavily damaged others on Main Street in Palmyra. Fire companies from Macedon were among the first on the scene, said Rea."I liked seeing how everyone pulled together," he said. "It was a spark of unity."Yet, that unity seems to be lacking in Macedon."Why are we (in Macedon) fighting so hard between our fire companies?" said John Cieslinski, who owns Books ETC. on Main Street in Macedon.On this and other matters, the town should be helping the village, not fighting it, he said.Village trustee David Kelly, who served as Macedon village fire chief for many years, said Hammond speaks of the town and village being partners, but is baffled by what the supervisor defines as a partnership."We are not treated as a partner. We're treated like a vendor," he said. "Why are we always on the cuff and having to explain our money to them, but no one else has to?"He added: "The issues have always seemed to be about money."And that is one thing both sides do agree on."It always comes down to money or control," said Town Board member David Maul.Kelly, along with other Village Board members, said the town needs to control every aspect of village services under contract with the town, showing a lack of trust in the village's ability to properly manage those services and the money paid for them.Moving to dissolveWhile the village battles with the town over services and costs, it has also battled to keep its government from dissolving. Several efforts to dissolve the village have been made, the last of which took place in September of 2010.Two grassroots organizations, Village Pride (pro-village) and One Macedon (pro-dissolution), went head to head over the village's future. In that last vote, Village Pride persevered, with residents voting 295 to 199 to keep the village. But the debate goes on, and there are rumblings of another dissolution effort afoot.Cieslinski maintains the village is the heart of the town. Instead of citizens arguing about whether to get rid of it, they should be supporting it, he said."If the village dissolves, Walmart becomes the center of town," he said.On the other hand, some agree with Tilli Kirkingburg, a Macedon resident who moved from Germany decades ago when she was in her 20s. She sees no need for two governments."I don't understand why we have two," said Kirkingburg.In her native country, she didn't have these layers of government and services, she said. "Your whole community is one."Cramer said when she went into office in March 2012, she knew the fractious history between town and village, and she understood clashes might continue.They have."History is repeating itself, though," she said. "I'm still always willing to keep an open mind and optimistic that we can still move forward. The residents need to continue to speak out, and I will still fight for what they believe in, because that's who we are serving — those who elected us in here."Although Sliney doesn't know the roots of the rift, he believes the dissolution issue is what started the ugliness.The Village Board could not quite grasp the concept of a community divided by village and town lines when they should be defining themselves as a single community, he said.Dissolution seemed the last thing on Kenyon's mind. In a previous interview with Kenyon regarding fire department contracts, he said it made no sense for the town to lobby for dissolution because it was town taxpayers who would take the hit in higher taxes if the village did dissolve.Indeed, in Lyons, where residents of the village have opted to dissolve and merge services with the town, townwide taxes are expected to rise significantly, while village taxes drop."We need to embrace each other's strengths," Cramer said. "It's a Macedon community whether you live in the town or the village."The Village Board's newest member, David Nelson, who was elected in March, concurred."Then it would really be one Macedon," he said.